DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant references the enthalpy in the liquid conditioning composition being at least “0.02 J/g/g”. This is unclear because “Joules per gram per gram” does not appear to be a standard unit of measurement for anything. The standard unit of measurement of enthalpy appears to be a Joule. As such, it is unclear what exactly is being measured or how the enthalpy is being measured such that it is expressed in “J/g/g”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 currently states the liquid conditioning composition has an enthalpy of “at least 0.02 J/g/g”. This is unclear because “Joules per gram per gram” does not appear to be a standard unit of measurement for anything. The standard unit of measurement of enthalpy appears to be a Joule. As such, it is unclear what exactly is being measured or how the enthalpy is being measured such that it is expressed in “J/g/g”. Claim 11 has been examined below based on the understanding of the amendment made to claim 1, which includes the previous limitations of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller et al. (US 2024/0278954) (hereinafter Müller) in view of Tolibas-Spurlock et al. US 2010/0044267) (hereinafter Tolibas-Spurlock) and further in view of Carus (US 2022/0025298).
Regarding Claim 1
Müller teaches a consumer product (below – Fig. 1) comprising: a fiber-based container comprising: a dimensionally stable shell (13) made of compressed pulp and having an inner surface, and a layer (15) of polymeric material coating at least the inner surface of the dimensionally stable shell, the layer of polymeric material delimiting a cavity, wherein the polymeric material is a biopolymer Paragraphs [0042]-[0045] and [0031]. Müller teaches the consumer product may include a liquid contained within the cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Müller does not teach the dimensionally stable shell has a thickness between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm; and a liquid conditioning composition contained in the cavity, the liquid conditioning composition comprising a quaternary ammonium alkyl compound and having a lipid bilayer phase transition temperature (Tm) of at least 25°C, wherein the enthalpy in the liquid conditioning composition (specific latent heat per unit weight of ester quat) is at least 0.02 J/g/g.
Tolibas-Spurlock teaches a consumer product (below – Fig. 4) comprising: a fiber-based container (18) comprising: a dimensionally stable shell made of compressed pulp and having an inner surface, wherein: the dimensionally stable shell has a thickness capable of being between ~1.6 mm and 2.0 mm and a layer of polymeric material coating (10) at least the inner surface of the dimensionally stable shell, the layer of polymeric material delimiting a cavity, and the polymeric material may be a biopolymer (Paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0047], [0048], and [0051]). Tolibas-Spurlock further teaches the consumer product may include a liquid within the cavity.
PNG
media_image2.png
419
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Müller and Tolibas-Spurlock are analogous inventions in the field of fiber-based containers having inner layers of a polymeric material coating. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the fiber-based container of Müller with the teachings of the thickness of Tolibas-Spurlock in order to provide a strong, smooth-surfaced molded pulp product (Paragraph [0048]).
Carus teaches a liquid conditioning composition contained in the cavity, the liquid conditioning composition comprising a quaternary ammonium alkyl compound and having a lipid bilayer phase transition temperature (Tm) of at least 25°C, wherein the enthalpy in the liquid conditioning composition (specific latent heat per unit weight of ester quat) is at least 0.02 J/g/g (Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
Müller in view of Tolibas-Spurlock and Smith are analogous inventions in that Müller and Tolibas-Spurlock teach containers for holding liquids and Smith teaches liquid. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of Müller in view of Tolibas-Spurlock with the teachings of the liquid of Carus in order to provide a liquid within the container.
Regarding Claim 3
Müller in view of Tolibas-Spurlock and further in view of Carus (hereinafter “modified Müller”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Carus further teaches the liquid conditioning composition has a lipid bilayer phase transition temperature of at least 33°C (Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Carus further teaches the quaternary ammonium alkyl compound is a quaternary ammonium alkyl ester compound derived from fatty acids having C16-C18 alkyl chains, wherein the quaternary ammonium alkyl ester compound and/or the fatty acids from which it is derived is characterized by an Iodine Value of from 0 to 90 (Paragraph [0024] and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Müller further teaches the polymeric material comprises a biopolymer (Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Müller further teaches the layer of polymeric material has a thickness of less than 0.3mm (Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Müller further teaches the polymeric material is biobased (Paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Müller further teaches the polymeric material is biodegradable according to the standard DIN EN 13432 (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Based on the minimum thickness of the shell of Tolibas-Spurlock (Paragraph [0048]), and the maximum thickness of the polymer layer of Müller (Paragraph [0022])- modified Müller further teaches the weight ratio of compressed pulp to polymeric material is at least 50:50.
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Müller teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Müller does not specifically teach the cavity has a volume comprised between 200 ml and 3000 ml.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to the cavity has a volume comprised between 200 ml and 3000 ml as liquid containers having volumes within this range are widely known – and further, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Further, Applicant has not disclosed that the cavity having a volume comprised between 200 ml and 3000 ml provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the cavity having a volume comprised 200 ml and 3000 ml does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 12-14
Müller teaches a consumer product (Fig. 1) comprising: a fiber-based container comprising: a dimensionally stable shell (13) made of compressed pulp and having an inner surface, and a layer of polymeric material coating at least the inner surface of the dimensionally stable shell, the layer (15) of polymeric material delimiting a cavity, wherein the polymeric material is a biopolymer (Paragraphs [0042]-[0045] and [0031]). Müller teaches the consumer product may include a liquid contained within the cavity.
Müller does not teach the dimensionally stable shell has a thickness between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm; and the fiber-based container has a Perfume Diffusion Value of at least 10.0 nmol/L; and a liquid conditioning composition contained in the cavity, wherein the enthalpy in the liquid conditioning composition (specific latent heat per unit weight of ester quat) is at least 0.02 J/g/g wherein the Perfume Diffusion Value is measured by placing the liquid conditioning composition in a 10-liter Tedlar bag, wherein said bag is sealed, and purged with nitrogen (N2) for 2.5 hours, wherein air samples are collected using an SKC AirChek 3000 pump with Tenax TA traps and analyzed by GC-MS to identify target compounds.
Tolibas-Spurlock teaches a consumer product ( Fig. 4) comprising: a fiber-based container (18) comprising: a dimensionally stable shell made of compressed pulp and having an inner surface, wherein: the dimensionally stable shell has a thickness capable of being between ~1.6 mm and 2.0 mm and a layer of polymeric material coating (10) at least the inner surface of the dimensionally stable shell, the layer of polymeric material delimiting a cavity, and the polymeric material may be a biopolymer (Paragraphs [0040], [0041], [0047], [0048], and [0051]). Tolibas-Spurlock further teaches the consumer product may include a liquid within the cavity.
Müller and Tolibas-Spurlock are analogous inventions in the field of fiber-based containers having inner layers of a polymeric material coating. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the fiber-based container of Müller with the teachings of the thickness of Tolibas-Spurlock in order to provide a strong, smooth-surfaced molded pulp product (Paragraph [0048]).
Based on the physical structure of the container of Müller and Tolibas-Spurlock meeting all the claimed limitations of the fiber-based container, it would further appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fiber-based container is more than capable of having a Perfume Diffusion Value of at least 10.0 nmol/L; wherein the Perfume Diffusion Value is measured by placing the liquid conditioning composition in a 10-liter Tedlar bag, wherein said bag is sealed, and purged with nitrogen (N2) for 2.5 hours, wherein air samples are collected using an SKC AirChek 3000 pump with Tenax TA traps and analyzed by GC-MS to identify target compounds.
Carus teaches a liquid conditioning composition contained in the cavity, the liquid conditioning composition contained in the cavity, wherein the enthalpy in the liquid conditioning composition (specific latent heat per unit weight of ester quat) is at least 0.02 J/g/g, and comprises a quaternary ammonium alkyl compound and having a lipid bilayer phase transition temperature (Tm) of at least 25°C (Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
Müller in view of Tolibas-Spurlock and Carus are analogous inventions in that Müller and Tolibas-Spurlock teach containers for holding liquids and Smith teaches liquid. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the container of Müller in view of Tolibas-Spurlock with the teachings of the liquid of Carus in order to provide a liquid within the container.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carus (US 2022/0025298) in view of Müller et al. (US 2024/0278954) (hereinafter Müller).
Regarding Claim 11
Carus teaches a consumer product comprising a liquid conditioning composition comprising a quaternary ammonium alkyl compound, wherein the liquid conditioning composition has a lipid bilayer phase transition temperature (Tm) of at least 25°C, and wherein the enthalpy in the liquid conditioning composition (specific latent heat per unit weight of ester quat) is at least 0.02 J/g/g (Paragraphs [0018]-[0024]).
Carus does not teach the liquid conditioning composition is contained in a fiber-based container comprising a layer of compressed pulp forming a dimensionally stable shell and enclosing an interior space, wherein the shell is at least partially coated with a layer comprising a polymeric material disposed on an inner surface of the shell adjacent to the interior space.
Müller teaches a consumer product contained in a fiber-based container (Fig. 1) comprising a layer of compressed pulp forming a dimensionally stable shell (13) and enclosing an interior space, wherein the shell is at least partially coated with a layer (15) comprising a polymeric material disposed on an inner surface of the shell adjacent to the interior space (Paragraphs [0042]-[0045] and [0031]).
Carus and Müller are analogous inventions in the field of liquids and containers for holding liquids. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the consumer product of Carus with the teachings of the container of Müller in order to provide a container that can hold the liquid conditioning composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 17 September 2026
Prosecution Insights